# Ralph Nader is a self-centered ass hat! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 22, 2004, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519 "2004-02-22T17:49:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2004, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/121 "2004-02-28T15:00:45Z")
I think I finally understand **erislover** ’s thinking on the point. His criterion is a party that is likely to win _at some point_, whether it be during an election or sometime in the future. Mondale may not have been likely to win the presidency in 1984, but the Democrats were likely to win seats in Congress in 1984 or 1986, and the Democrats as a whole would have had a chance to win the Oval Office again in 1988. And so on and so forth every two years. Whereas third parties and independent candidates, like Anderson in 1980 and Nader in 1996 and 2000, have no chance of winning _ever_ - at least if they don’t garner 5% of the vote during a national election and thus qualify for federal election funds. **erislover** sees the national political arena as it has been for the last century or so - Republicans and Democrats dominating the field and taking action to keep it that way - and thinks this is going to be the Way It Is, world without end, glory hallelujah. He doesn’t understand that such things are not fixed, that they can and do change. So he assumes that the not-so-conservative party is the only one that will ever be able to represent the interests of the liberal center and the left in the US, despite their record to the contrary. Therefore, black not being white, any vote that is not _directly_ for this not-so-conservative party is a vote either directly or indirectly for the conservative party. Keep those blinders on, buddy, and don’t come crying to the Pit when Kerry inevitably disappoints you. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2004, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/122 "2004-02-28T15:07:03Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > Last I heard, that decision was made in the judicial branch, the one _least_ susceptible to public pressure. Ground swell my posterior: it was a backroom deal! So you deny there was _any_ major grassroots political activism in the US around the question of legalizing abortion nationally, and if not, that such activism had _no_ effect on the Supreme Court’s decision whatsoever? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2004, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/123 "2004-02-28T15:24:06Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > I think I finally understand **erislover** ’s thinking on the point. His criterion is a party that is likely to win _at some point_, whether it be during an election or sometime in the future. Nope. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2004, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/124 "2004-02-28T23:24:03Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > Aaaaaaand a Democratic president with a majority Republican Congress would be how much more effective? A President with minority backing can still negotiate support from select members of the opposing party, creating _some_ degree of effect. But Ralphie-boy would have nothing to trade. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2004, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/125 "2004-02-28T23:28:07Z")
Oh BTW, **Olentzero**? Please explain how the difficulties of a Democrat absolve your “candidate” \HA-HA!\ from being totally impotent himself? Yes, **do** —explain to us all how somebody else’s problems (solvable ones) makes your “candidate” viable? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/126 "2004-02-29T00:06:37Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Nope. Then how would you have justified voting for Mondale in 1984 when it was clear he _wasn’t_ going to win? **Bosda** , you self-satisfied little asshat whinger, I never said anything about Nader’s viability. I was trying to point out that the Democrats aren’t any more immune from being politically hamstrung than you make Nader out to be. Simply saying “Nader would have a rough time of it with Congress” is not a sufficient argument for not voting for him. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/127 "2004-02-29T00:32:27Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > So you deny there was _any_ major grassroots political activism in the US around the question of legalizing abortion nationally, and if not, that such activism had _no_ effect on the Supreme Court’s decision whatsoever? I am denying that the activism had a significant effect, or even a small effect. Please relate to me which judge switched his vote on the basis of all this activism. And OBTW, also explain why 30 years of concerted right-wing activism -at a higher intensity than Planned Parenthood could muster by the way- has failed to overturn Rowe v. Wade. -------- erislover sees the national political arena as it has been for the last century or so - Republicans and Democrats dominating the field and taking action to keep it that way - and thinks this is going to be the Way It Is, world without end, glory hallelujah. He doesn’t understand that such things are not fixed, that they can and do change. ## Sure things change. But it is difficult to think of an example where a non-centrist third party has ever risen to the top 2 slots. I find it interesting that so-called radical leftists don’t get up in arms about an electoral system that does such a mediocre job of reflecting public preferences. Heck, from the looks of this thread, it appears that democratic theory isn’t even of passing interest. I chalk it up to feel-goodism trumping analysis. But YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/128 "2004-02-29T00:40:23Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > But it is difficult to think of an example where a non-centrist third party has ever risen to the top 2 slots. …barring the independent and prior collapse of one of the two main parties, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/129 "2004-02-29T00:52:48Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > **Bosda** , you self-satisfied little asshat whinger, I never said anything about Nader’s viability. I was trying to point out that the Democrats aren’t any more immune from being politically hamstrung than you make Nader out to be. Simply saying “Nader would have a rough time of it with Congress” is not a sufficient argument for not voting for him. HA-HA! I struck a nerve, there! Here, I’ll stick him again. Nader would not have a “rough time of it”, you illiterate, fanatical monkey-humper! He would be **totally impotent**! All that your crazed jabber & popskull-addled yammering demonstrates is your complete ignorance of the US Constitution. The President can’t do _fuck all_ without funding from Congress. I hope Crazy Ralph has a _lot_ of friends in the wind power industry, 'cause he’s not even gonna get the bread to light the White House from Congress. HEY! Anybody notice that the word “ralph” is slang for “vomit”? Some things are so suitable, you’d think it was planned. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/130 "2004-02-29T00:58:21Z")
I am reminded of Michael Parenti’s take on the 1980 election. **Brief Historical Review** Ronald Reagan was going up against Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter had his work cut out, given that he chose to fight inflation at the end of his term, rather than in the beginning, as a typical politician would have done. Carter’s reluctance to put the lives of the US hostages in Iran at risk also hurt, as did backdoor dealings of Reagan’s advisors with the Iranian government. There were also the usual Republican nationalistic appeals, of course. On the plus side, Carter maintained that Reagan was an extremist, prone to deficit spending and a believer in economic theories that lacked any sort of empirical evidence. In short, Reagan promoted voodoo economics. **And now on with our story** Anyway, Parenti was at a party following Reagan’s victory. Many in the room were shaking their heads, while Parenti couldn’t figure out what all the fuss was about. After all, the Democrats and Republicans were the same, right? Neither would nationalize the commanding heights of the economy or even Coca Cola. It was difficult for poor Mr. Parenti to spot the differences between Carter and Reagan. An associate of Parenti’s told him to pipe down: there were El Salvadorans in the room. You see, they weren’t particularly happy about a Reagan victory. Although I trust that they admired the worker’s vanguard as much as the next guy, there was the small matter of military support for the El Salvadoran generals, which put their families at risk. It was these small differences- you know, life and death- that to them distinguished the Democrats from the Republicans. Sometime later Parenti began to appreciate these distinctions. It is unfortunate that not all have caught on, however. Ah well, the wheels of progress turn slowly. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/131 "2004-02-29T01:59:11Z")
> [@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor](#): > > HA-HA! I struck a nerve, there! Here, I’ll stick him again. Uh… yeah. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/132 "2004-02-29T02:39:04Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > I am denying that the activism had a significant effect, or even a small effect. Please relate to me which judge switched his vote on the basis of all this activism. Well, I took some time to read up on the case, reading the opinions, finding out which President appointed which justices, reading transcripts of the oral arguments. But it wasn’t the information I was looking for. I guess what I really need is transcripts from the confirmation hearings for Burger, Blackmun, and Powell - three justices appointed by Nixon, who in during the 1972 campaign called the Democrats the party of “amnesty, acid, and abortion” - thin evidence, yes, but obviously a polarizing statement meant to portray himself as an opponent thereof. It would seem apparent, then, that if Nixon packed the court with appointments, he’d do it with justices whose views matched his own on the major issues, like abortion. If he wanted to keep it either illegal or severely restricted, he’d try to appoint judges who would deny legal challenges to the individual state laws. At the same time, the womens’ liberation fight had been heating up. and the demand for abortion was at the top of the list. The period from 1969 to 1973 saw literally hundreds of protests - like the “Women’s Strike for Equality” in Aug 1970 that drew 50,000. I honestly regret I don’t have more on this, but given the small amount of evidence I do have, I’d be honestly very surprised if there were no correlation at all between activism on women’s rights in the 1970s and the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade. > [@](#): > > And OBTW, also explain why 30 years of concerted right-wing activism -at a higher intensity than Planned Parenthood could muster by the way- has failed to overturn Rowe v. Wade. The case may not be overturned, but plenty of other legislation has chipped away at it - like the Hyde Amendment, parental notification laws, the furor over intact dilation and extraction (“partial birth”, as it is wrongly called), and so on - so that it has very little effective power today. Were it otherwise, abortions would be available in far more than the 10% of the US counties it’s available in today. Right-wing activism has been just as effective in reducing a woman’s right to an abortion as left-wing activism was in getting that right granted in 1973. > [@](#): > > Sure things change. But it is difficult to think of an example where a non-centrist third party has ever risen to the top 2 slots. Maybe not here, not yet - but it has happened. Britain’s Labor Party was a party of the extreme left when it first got its start in the 1800s. Now look at 'em. There’s no iron-clad feature of the US political arena against a non-centrist third party repeating the feat. > [@](#): > > I find it interesting that so-called radical leftists don’t get up in arms about an electoral system that does such a mediocre job of reflecting public preferences. Oh, I despise the Electoral College jes’ fine and think it ought to be thrown out lock, stock, and barrel. But that’s not the subject of this Pit thread, is it? Parenti wasn’t all that far off in his assessment of the Democrats and the Republicans, really - Carter funded opponents of the Sandinistas through the CIA and sent $10 million in military aid and advisors before he left office. Would he have stopped that cold in 1981 had he been re-elected? I find it hard to believe. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/133 "2004-02-29T03:23:56Z")
**Olentzero** — Roe v. Wade: Well, you present weak evidence, which I suppose beats, “no evidence” which is what I have offered. I believe there’s a copy of Woodward’s _The Brethren_ floating in the M4M archives, but I can’t put my hand on it now. My impression though is that justices tend to ignore letter writing campaigns, although admittedly they do pay attention to public opinion, witness their shifting stance on gay rights. At any rate, I would note that the right’s ability to chip away at reproductive freedom is directly proportional to their successes at the electoral level. Luckily, the Christian right is susceptible to symbolic gestures: apparently the occasional theocratic mumbling and fortuitous glurging goes a long way with that crowd. ----- Britain’s Labor Party I’ll look into that hypothesis. (I suspect that this thread will die beforehand though). ---- Oh, I despise the Electoral College jes’ fine … Um, ok, but I’m not talking about the Electoral college. I’m talking about “Winner-take-all voting”, also known as, “First-past-the-post” voting. It’s what permits a POV reflecting 20% of the population to be marginalized in public debate. ---- Carter: Sandinista: In Nicaragua, I doubt whether Carter would have supported the Contras, like Reagan did, eventually in conflict with US law. In El Salvador, Carter’s support for the Generals was diminishing. Reagan’s support increased. Whether a small dictatorship is funded to the tune of $10 million or $100 million actually matters. Hm. I used to table for CISPES, as it happens. Funny how my recollection is so foggy. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/134 "2004-02-29T06:20:55Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Left ghetto? What is that? What brought it to mind was this suggestion by a group of libertarians who at one time had a webpage dedicated to trying to further this goal. It was, in my eyes, admiral and though it was a long shot they were thinking somewhat practically about it, pick a low population state, etc. The above is just unrealistic, but that’s not the really offensive part of what you said. This is: > [@](#): > > For instance, I think it’d be nice if people who supported third parties geographically concentrated themselves to maybe get some seats in Congress. ] **Of course, that would actually require they do something rather than “claim” some moral high road by suggesting that their vote for a third party was doing their part.** You’re saying it would be nice if people who supported third parties all moved to the same area. No, it’s not more realistic that they’d want to remain in THEIR HOMES AND COMMUNITIES while simultaneously being represented by politicians who support their issues; that’s too much to ask. No, according to you, they ought to relocate to be with other radical weirdos. BUT THEN you go on to say that if they don’t, they’re not on the moral high road, they’re just voting third party and thinking that’s enough. Fucking ridiculous. > [@](#): > > Because there is no glitch. If you think my method leaves one candidate before my personal preferences act, you have spectacularly failed to understand a really simple summary. No, you are just too blinkered to see that your system would totally eliminate the possibility of voting third party EVER because they will NEVER (according to you) have a chance of winning. But you won’t admit that you are adamantly against third parties. Why? It’s glaringly obvious. Just be honest for one second, willya? > [@](#): > > Clearly you are for Bush wholeheartedly. :rolleyes: No, I’m in favor of a multi-party system. It’s you who desperately needs to conflate that with being for Bush. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/135 "2004-02-29T14:30:00Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > My impression though is that justices tend to ignore letter writing campaigns, although admittedly they do pay attention to public opinion, witness their shifting stance on gay rights. The campaign for abortion rights was anything _but_ a letter-writing campaign (although that may have happened as well). Public opinion was manifested pretty effectively in the years leading up to Roe v Wade, and, as you say, it seems the justices paid attention to it. > [@](#): > > Um, ok, but I’m not talking about the Electoral college. I’m talking about “Winner-take-all voting”, also known as, “First-past-the-post” voting. It’s what permits a POV reflecting 20% of the population to be marginalized in public debate. I’m not entirely against it, really. I’d just like to see the arena opened to more parties. > [@](#): > > Whether a small dictatorship is funded to the tune of $10 million or $100 million actually matters. Quantitatively, yes. One party gave less money than the other. Qualitatively, no - both parties were involved in supporting a viciously bloody and undemocratic regime to support their countries’ own foreign policy interests, when they clearly had no business doing so. > [@](#): > > Hm. I used to table for CISPES, as it happens. Funny how my recollection is so foggy. Did you think at that time that $10 million was a more acceptable sum than $100 million, or were you in favor of the US completely withdrawing from El Salvador? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/136 "2004-02-29T17:57:39Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > You’re saying it would be nice if people who supported third parties all moved to the same area. No, it’s not more realistic that they’d want to remain in THEIR HOMES AND COMMUNITIES while simultaneously being represented by politicians who support their issues; that’s too much to ask. Jesus Christ, are you intentionally ignoring my posts as a whole and focusing on them one at a time, hoping to nitpick your way to glory here? **I support third parties** , I think politics needs many parties, I **want** proportional representation, elected by party line voting in multi-seat elections and approval or single transferrable voting in single-seat elections. What I don’t want is to sit around and pretend that any of this will just happen because I’m voting for a third party. **It won’t.** _One of the ways_ third parties could increase their representation is to take their _very small numbers_ and come together in one place. That’s just knowing how fucking voting works and winners are elected. Six percent of the national vote, and you think you’ll be able to get all these greens in the office to represent you? Don’t be fucking stupid. Just don’t. There are ways it will happen. Pining for “integrity” in votes isn’t going to do it; appealing to your own self-righteous bullshit isn’t, either. > [@](#): > > No, according to you, they ought to relocate to be with other radical weirdos. BUT THEN you go on to say that if they don’t, they’re not on the moral high road, they’re just voting third party and thinking that’s enough. Fucking ridiculous. It is a (note the singular) fucking **suggestion** and it would actually **accomplish something**. Contrast this to voting, and whining afterwards. One method has a realizable goal; the other has self-centered asshats (courtesey of the OP). > [@](#): > > No, you are just too blinkered to see that your system would totally eliminate the possibility of voting third party EVER because they will NEVER (according to you) have a chance of winning. Are you becoming more stupid as the thread goes on? I know I’ll never vote third party under this voting system! > [@](#): > > But you won’t admit that you are adamantly against third parties.Why? **Because I am not against third parties.** What I am _for_ are voting systems that _encourage_ third parties. Such systems enable you to vote for candidates you like a lot without hurting candidates you also approve of, only less so. This, of course, would be a step forward for third parties. Allowing people to effectively (STV) or literally (approval voting) vote for more than one person would definitely encourage third parties. I trust that is obvious. If I hate third parties so much, why on earth would I be so vocal of a proponent for voting systems which benefit the little guys more than the bigger guys (partly line)? ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/137 "2004-03-01T00:53:00Z")
> [@](#): > > I support third parties, I think politics needs many parties, I want proportional representation, elected by party line voting in multi-seat elections and approval or single transferrable voting in single-seat elections. So let’s turn your own comments on you: what are you doing to change the voting system, besides whining about it and voting for Democrats? > [@](#): > > What I don’t want is to sit around and pretend that any of this will just happen because I’m voting for a third party. It won’t. But you honestly think that failing to support third parties with your vote AND trying to talk other people out of voting for them helps third parties? > [@](#): > > One of the ways third parties could increase their representation is to take their very small numbers and come together in one place. That’s just knowing how fucking voting works and winners are elected. Six percent of the national vote, and you think you’ll be able to get all these greens in the office to represent you? The problem is that I think there are many people who are registered Democrats who would be better represented by the Green party or other alternate parties, but like you, they vote for the lesser of the two evils instead of the greater good. I really don’t think you’re fighting ignorance by trying to convince people to continue supporting the status quo and just whining about the voting system to no avail. > [@](#): > > Pining for “integrity” in votes isn’t going to do it; appealing to your own self-righteous bullshit isn’t, either. Whatever. I’m doing a fuck of a lot more than just pining and appealing. I don’t need to offer your my resume to feel good about how I’m doing my part to work some change in American politics. Before you call me self-righteous, just remember who is trying to convince whom to betray whose conscience. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/138 "2004-03-01T01:30:04Z")
**Eris** : Maybe I’m dreaming, but I don’t think it’s impossible for the US to switch to approval voting or whatever. IIRC (I sure hope IRC) the Constitution says that the states chose those in the House of Representatives. There is nothing stopping them from pooling a few districts and having them chose a group of Reps. This would automatically stop gerrymandering, which may make the plan sellable. The downside is that the set of Reps would cover larger districts. Still, if a group of Reps are covering an area that is (say) less than 50 miles on a side, I don’t see too much room for complaint. Once a single state switches to this system, then there would be a pretty strong demonstration effect, IMHO. Oddly, discussion of this issue is fairly rare in nonacademic circles. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/139 "2004-03-01T01:55:56Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > The campaign for abortion rights was anything _but_ a letter-writing campaign (although that may have happened as well). Public opinion was manifested pretty effectively in the years leading up to Roe v Wade, and, as you say, it seems the justices paid attention to it. I suspect that insofar as the justices were affected, newspaper editorials played a much larger role than demonstrations. \<\\>\> > [@](#): > > I’m not entirely against it, really. I’d just like to see the arena opened to more parties. Yeah, so would I. But I act on the basis of the world that I live in, not the world I want to live in. I suspect that this outlook of mine (and Eris’) is a semi-fundamental tempermental difference between us (although it could be characterized differently, of course). > [@](#): > > Quantitatively, yes. One party gave less money than the other. Qualitatively, no - both parties were involved in supporting a viciously bloody and undemocratic regime to support their countries’ own foreign policy interests, when they clearly had no business doing so.Did you think at that time that $10 million was a more acceptable sum than $100 million, or were you in favor of the US completely withdrawing from El Salvador? Here’s a pretty good example. First, here are some links (which I’ve skimmed, only) El Salvador [http://www.icomm.ca/carecen/page75.html](http://www.icomm.ca/carecen/page75.html) Nicaragua: [http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/niessayx.htm](http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/niessayx.htm) In Nicaragua, Carter was not friendly to the Sandanistas. Nonetheless, I doubt whether he would have followed the policy of “Rollback” that Reagan did. That is, Carter would not have directed the CIA to organize and arm the Contras. To me, there is a big distinction between, “Not supporting the Sandanistas” and “Arming the Contras”: for one thing, the latter costs human lives. **Olent** appears to think that the 2 policies are qualitatively similar. As I am focused on the direct consequences of these policies on human life and welfare, the 2 policies appear to me to be qualitatively different. Of course, the fact that I am generally skeptical about the inevitable benefits of “Revolution”, slants my thinking. Mind you, I’m not unilaterally against all revolutions: I merely believe they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Sorry for the meandering and length of this post. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519/140 "2004-03-01T02:25:08Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > Some of our disagreements are getting fact-intensive, btw. No kidding. I’m reminded of the old joke, “I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out.” As for your research on the Labor Party, I still maintain that Labor was to the left of the Liberal Party and is therefore a non-centrist party that successfully rose to the top 2 slots of a national political scene. And therefore I maintain that such a feat is possible here in the US as well. > [@](#): > > First, here are some links (which I’ve skimmed, only) I’d run across one of those articles in my own research (the icomm article) but the other one I hadn’t seen yet, and I think they both reinforce my point. Here are a few quotes for illustrative purposes. From icomm: > [@](#): > > The rise of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas in 1979, however, led to a reassessment of this policy. Carter was attacked by conservatives in the U.S. for “losing” Nicaragua and his policies shifted from an emphasis on democratization towards **simply maintaining the Salvadoran army’s strength in the face of a challenge by insurgents.** You’ll note that Carter shifted his policy because of conservative criticism. Had there actually been a qualitative difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, I think it likely Carter would have defended his approach on its own merits. Instead he capitulated to the right. But with what effect? From the NS Archive site: > [@](#): > > Even as Somoza’s widely despised praetorian army rampaged through civilian sectors of Nicaragua, **indiscriminately killing teenage boys and girls,** U.S. officials labored to find a means to save the National Guard. It doesn’t matter whether it was Carter’s $10 million or Reagan’s $100 million, the goal was to prevent a successful uprising and revolution by the Sandinistas, and both Carter’s and Reagan’s actions had a tangible cost in human lives. Call it “rollback” or call it “democratization”, Carter has Nicaraguan blood on his hands same as Reagan. Similarly, the doctrine of “regime change” in Iraq was written in 1998, under the Clinton-Gore administration. The whole brouhaha about Iraqi WMD, which this administration now admits don’t exist, started under Clinton as well. The whole basis for this stupid war and occupation was laid during a Democratic tenure in the Oval Office. And the next Democratic contender for the job wants to keep it going. We already see what the effects are - an angry native population steadily coalescing into a resistance movement, US troops angry because they’ve been there far too long and want to come home, and the only reconstruction going on benefits the companies sent in to dismantle the old economy. Why in the hell would I want to vote for a Democratic candidate who thinks continuing a program, which another Democrat set into motion and is now being zealously overseen by Republicans, is a good idea? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ralph-nader-is-a-self-centered-ass-hat/230519.md?page=8)